Talk:Educational Testing Service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Common usage vs. acronym
Which name do you want (ETS or spelled out)? Angela and I have differing opinoins on this. One is that we should use the abbreviated version, as that is what most people remember and call the test in common usage. The other opinion is that it acronyms should be spelled out. We'll keep this with the acronym for now, as that's how it started, but feedback's appreciated.
--zandperl 04:38, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I was talking more about the exams themselves being at the short version (GRE for example). I have less strong views on this as most people probably do know what ETS stands for, but not what GRE stands for. Angela
The legal business name is "Educational Testing Service." The brandname used is "ETS." There is no "the" as in "the Educational Testing Service" or "the ETS." This is a common mistake. I recommend using the spelled out name the first time in the article, and "ETS" after that.Henrycaesar (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Profit
I removed the following:
- This has led many students to cynically view the ETS as being motivated purely by profit, and not by their professed motive of helping colleges and universities determine student readiness for further educational challenges.
I don't see how this can be true when ETS is a non-profit organisation. Are there any sources to back up the idea that people think this? Angela 04:43, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
Actually, I'm unclear as to whether ETS is actually non-profit or not. Their info page, [1] says nothing about being non-profit, and the only source I have regarding it, the TOEFL page states that the College Board is non-profit but says nothing about the ETS.
As for the opinion of students on the ETS, again I do not have a reference-able source for this, but I am currently a graduate student and throughout my whole educational carreer my peers and teachers have accused the ETS of being a monopoly. I tried to make the statement in NPOV, by saying that it is the opinion of students that the ETS is making a profit, rather than stating it as fact. I want to convey that there is a portion of students and teachers/professors whom express a strong sentiment of dislike for the ETS, specifically for the reasons I stated and not just a dislike of test-taking. Can you help me express this without sacrificing the NPOV?
Above link is broken. ETS is infact, non-profit, HOWEVER the following may be of significant interest, according to David Hoff, "Testing ETS," Education Week (December 1, 1999),p. 3 their 1998 IRS tax form states that ETS holds $34.8 mill in cash, $132 mill in stocks, and $133.4 mill in property (non-taxable). With executives earning in excess of half a million dollars annual sallary. I would like to take this oppertunity to remind everyone that this was as of 1998, nearly 8 years ago. So I will not remove the non-profit bit from the entry, but I do suggest someone take a bit more time and research to clearly explain how much of a profit can still be considered non-profit here. Travis 05:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The parent company, ETS, is as the article says a 501c3, not-for-profit educational institution. ETS has to keep careful track of all of its activities to ensure that they fall under the mission statement from the nonprofit charter they got from the New York Board of REgents when the company was started. That mission statement is this: "Our mission is to help advance quality and equity in education by providing fair and valid assessments, research and related services.Our products and services measure knowledge and skills, promote learning and performance, and support education and professional development for all people worldwide." Any of their activities that fall outside this mission are for-profit, and are accounted for and federal corporate income taxes are paid on those business activities. To keep things clean, most of those activities are done through for-profit subsidiaries, like Prometric and ETS Global BV.
This article does seem to have a strong anti-ETS bias, in that it presents the position that ETS has had problems in the first year of delivering its UK program through the National Assessment AGency, but doesn't mention its hundreds of testing programs that did not have any delivery problems. It focuses on the "monopoly" charges that brought on legislation in New York, but not on the fact that ETS has never been found to have a monopoly on anything. The College Board's SAT has vigorous competition from ACT. The TOEFL has vigorous competition from IELTS, and now from Pearson's new partnership with the GMAC. All of ETS's K-12 business, which is over 25% of its business is highly competitive with companies like Pearson, CTB McGraw-Hill, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Measured Progress, DRC, and about six others.
The fact that it originally said (before I corrected it) that "most" of ETS's business from The College Board, shows how out of date these views are. Only 22-25% of its business is from The College Board, and that doesn't count its for-profit subsidiaries. Henrycaesar (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
Does anyone have a problem with this sentence: "ETS's main function is keep its overpaid staff occupied." ? I do. Also, citation needed after the sentence stating that the entire reason ETS resides in Princeton is so it will "seem" like it is associated/endorsed by the Princeton Review. Julesrbf 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's a major bias. ETS's Board of Trustees constantly monitors salaries, especially of senior management, to make sure it's not out of line with the company's position as a nonprofit. Salaries are competitive for each part of the industry and the senior execs get paid considerably less than they could make in their for-profit competitors. Plus no one can get any stock options because there is no stock in a nonprofit. All the for-profit competitors give stock options as a benefit to senior management. The thing to remember is that ETS can only make money by competing in the market and selling products and services against competitors. They get no government funds and they get no donations. That means they need people who can run a competitive business and you have to pay a competitive compensation to get people who can do that.
The reason ETS has a big campus in Princeton has nothing to do with getting associate or endorse by the Princeton Review. The Princeton Review is a competitor that sells test prep programs. The reason ETS is in Princeton is because it was founded there by people associated with Princeton University. They bought a huge farm years ago when the land was cheap and they still have it. They have made the ETS campus a public green space for the use of the people in the community, so they are actually providing the town with a free park. Henrycaesar (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I also have a problem with these lines. Someone obviously does not like ETS.
What about the use of "campus-like headquarters"? What is its relevance to the article or neutrality? The language sounds a bit biased in ETS's favor, as though it's straight from an advertising brochure. The Google map doesn't necessarily demonstrate this attribute either, with the exception of a lot of green space. From that aerial photo, one could claim a "golf-course-like headquarters", which would be equally inaccurate.
Make no mistake, I dislike ETS, but I don't want the article to be biased either way. I'm sure there are plenty of documented criticisms of ETS, but if we want to include them, they must come from cited sources. I agree about the "campus-like headquarters" bit - I'm going to take care of THAT right now! BlackberryLaw 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is a biased article. There is no golf course there. And the buildings are quite plain on the inside, like you'd expect from a nonprofit institution. What this article needs is a few paragraphs of positive information about ETS. I can write it, but I have to make sure I get all the accurate references together. Henrycaesar (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested Updates
I'd like to suggest to the editors some updates:
Nancy Cole is past president (was effective July 2000) Change Nancy Cole to President and CEO Kurt Landgraf Ref: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E3D81638F934A35754C0A9669C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fE%2fEducational%20Testing%20Service
Add link to Wikipedia page for "standardized examinations" - change text to "standardized tests" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardized_test
Add 'K-12' and 'higher education' - in "primarily in the United States for 'K-12' and 'higher education," - link to those entries on Wikipedia. K-12 = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-12, higher education = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education
Add 'GRE' - in "tests such as TOEFL and 'GRE' - and link to this Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Record_Examination
Rosedale 085 18:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
To balance the strong anti-ETS bias in the article, I suggest linking to the FAQ page on the ETS webside, which is at http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.22f30af61d34e9c39a77b13bc3921509/?vgnextoid=3759253b164f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD Henrycaesar (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
